Dumb Question: How does an exception prove a rule?

[Momgonepostal]

I hear this expression and I don't get it.

Sample dialogue:

Me: FReepers are idiots.
You: I actually know a FReeper who's reasonably bright.
Me: She's the exception who proves the rule.

Wouldn't the existence of a smart FReeper DISPROVE the rule? How exactly does showing an exception prove the rule? Is there some other rule out there I don't know about?

:shrug:

[billyskank]

1. It doesn't. It's just a trite phrase

:rofl:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. An exception doesn't prove a rule

If the rule is: i before e, except after c, then neighbor and weigh don't prove the rule, they are simply stand alone exceptions.

[motely36]

3. I thought the expression was

"She's the exception TO the rule"

Never heard exception that proves the rule.

:shrug:

[snooper2]

6. you are correct..

NT

[Momgonepostal]

8. That certainly makes more sense

And I hear that, too.

[patcox2]

4. "Prove" means "test."

Think of it that way, "prove" does not always mean validate, it can also mean "to test." Thats one meaning, the common meaning. The exception puts the rule to the test, but does not invalidate it.

However, the strict meaning is technical and legal: "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis." It means that when you read a law and there is an exception, this exception implies the contrary, the rule, when the excepting circumstances are not present.

[Momgonepostal]

10. Ahhh, OK!

Thank you. I wasn't thinking of "prove" in that sense.

[Lisa]

21. yes -- it only "proves" it if you're speaking Latin

We use "prove" (as opposed to the Latin "provo, provere") in a rather different sense.

[Boojatta]

32. "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis."

Might another interpretation be the following?

Knowing every kind of exception to a rule allows one to conclude that a particular case under consideration is not an exception to the rule.

[khashka]

5. It's an old fashioned phrase

and "prove" has the old fashioned meaning of "test".

Like "proving ground" really means a "testing ground".


Khash.

[Momgonepostal]

11. Thank you! This clears things up. nt

[khashka]

33. Well I keep telling you all

I'm a genius. But do any of you ever believe me?

Actually if you really are interested in stuff like this you might wanna check out a book called "Why Do We Say The Things We Say?" It's really quite good.... and all those phrases and cliches we use that make no sense are explained. It's fascinating.


Khash.

[Momgonepostal]

34. I've heard of it...I'll check it out, thanks! nt

[patcox2]

7. Great discussion of this at "The Straight Dope."

"Cicero was defending one Bilbo. (No relation to Frodo.) Bilbo was a non-Roman who was accused of having been illegally granted Roman citizenship. The prosecutor argued that treaties with some non-Roman peoples explicitly prohibited them from becoming Roman citizens. The treaty with Bilbo's homeboys had no such clause, but the prosecutor suggested one should be inferred.

Nonsense, said Cicero. "Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit exceptum ..." Oops, I keep forgetting how rusty folks are on subjunctives. Cicero said, if you prohibit something in certain cases, you imply that the rest of the time it's permitted. To put it another way, the explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails otherwise."

[Momgonepostal]

12. This makes sense too, thank you! nt

[ThomCat]

18. This is what I've always understood.

The fact that X is clearly an exception proves that the Y is the general rule.

[Lisa]

24. although, wouldn't there be a difference between the legal environment

... as described in this early Roman law example, and other situations? The parties are trying to figure out what the background assumptions are, but they both seem to agree that the laws are adequate to describe their reality, and just have to be interpreted properly.

However, if one is describing something in nature (physical properties, or the way in which humans or animals behave), unless one is really into "intelligent design" and believes that absolutely everything is here and happens for a reason, the logic may not hold up, outside of a specific legal context. For example, we make up classification systems and scientific theories to try to explain things, and because they are human constructions, they will be incomplete because we don't know everything that's going on. If we try to classify living things as either animals or plants, and then we find Euglena (single-celled organism that can carry out photosynthesis and move around too), we could try to fit it into one or the other kingdom. Or we could ignore it, or insist that the existing classification must be fine since that's only one exception. Instead, we ended up revising our theories a little (and so it was put in a whole other kingdom, the "protista"). After a while, if the number of exceptions builds up, people begin to wonder if the original theory is workable (and this seems to be what happens a lot of the time, when the "proves the rule" argument is used for a long time in any particular situation).

Historians seem to run into this a lot, too. What bets Iraq will be touted as "the example that proves the rule" for overseas military intervention bringing security?

[calico1]

9. Sounds like another old saying that has been

changed around. It should be "exception to the rule." Saying "exception that proves the rule" is as logical as saying "I could care less" which means the opposite of that. In this case I find it is said more often than the original saying "I couldn't care less" which is what people who say "I could care less" really mean. :crazy:

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Easy! It Proves The Rule Has Exceptions!

Besides, in your example, it can't prove anything. There is NO SUCH THING AS AN EXCEPTIONALLY BRIGHT FREEPER! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! Anybody even remotely bright would not be a freeper, for goodness sake! Being a smart freeper is like being the tallest chipmunk! But, in a larger population, it's still a chipmunk.
The Professor

[patcox2]

14. Ah, professor, you have a tautology there.

You see, in the philosophical sense, there is an axiom that no statement is always true, or always false, and if it appears to be so, then there must be a hidden tautology in its definition. You define freepers as those who are stupid in order to exclude the possibility of the exceptional smart freeper, which is a tautology.

The way that the "exception" proves the rule is this; suppose I say to you "look at that, whaddaya know, I never thought I would see the day, but there goes a smart freeper." You would reply with, "yeah, but she's the exception." In that way, you have confirmed the rule that most freepers are dumb. She wouldn't be an exception if not for the rule; her status as an exception is in fact proof of the rule.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. That one isn't a good example

An example of one that is:

In Dead Poet's Society, there is a scene where Robin Williams has his students out in the courtyard practicing walking, based on a passage from a poem. It's instruction to help show them how to feel each moment instead of getting caught up in living their lives for their responsibilities only. Each of the students is supposed to walk however they feel comfortable, but be aware of doing it, make each moment count. One of the students isn't walking at all. When Williams asks him why he isn't, he responds that he is just exercising his right not to walk, and Williams says that he is providing th exception that proves his point. By being aware of what he is doing and why, he is fulfilling the assignment without actually doing it.

[calico1]

23. Okay. That makes sense. n/t

[Hosnon]

16. I have always understood it to mean that since the only exception that you

can come up with is one that is amazingly complex and/or ridiculous it proves how strong the rule is.

Example:

A State in the international arena usually must have a permanent population of a certain size to form a legitimate government internationally.

Of course, the Vatican is the exception to that rule...and it is such a unique example that it proves the rule.

[mr blur]

17. No, "prove"means "test", as in

"the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

[ThomCat]

19. Prove may sometimes have that meaning.

But not necessarily in this case. I think you are incorrect in this case.

[Richardo]

20. This is the correct response

as far as I'm concerned.

It is NOT a corruption of "The exception to the rule." NOT.

[Lisa]

22. because of the ambiguity surrounding "prove", it might be better to say,

that the Vatican City example -- or any other special circumstance, like predicting the color of chicken eggs based on their ears* -- doesn't really apply, because there are other factors which trump it. Admittedly, it's also a form of ass-covering after one's been caught out, but a bit more sophisticated (especially if you're able to describe the actual factors). Some people like the brazenness of claiming that a negative example counts as a positive example, but it can get kind of predictable. Sets up an interesting problem because if one is using "the exception proves the rule" for a really trivial situation ("Dave always parks over there" -- "he didn't today" -- "well, that just proves he normally does"), it doesn't seem particularly useful. Yet it seems unsound to base a really important argument (like one's postgraduate thesis) on it.

As far as the complexity thing goes -- I suppose one could invoke "Occam's Razor" (applied to suggest that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, the implication being that more complicated situations are far less likely to occur). People have debated whether this actually holds up, which is a whole different issue.


p.s. scientists get used to hedging a bit, and allowing for some variability in observed patterns ("law" has a different meaning to scientists and lawyers), since the world is so complex and bizarre that making a sweeping pronouncement will just set you up to get bitten in the behind someday. It's really hard to get researchers to say something will "always" or "never" happen ... and they invariably reel off a list of conditions.

*The chicken/egg observation -- chickens with white earlobes generally lay white eggs, while ones with red earlobes generally lay brown eggs. But there is the Araucana (red earlobes, blue or green eggs), which could be explained away by suggesting they originated in South America rather than Eurasia like the others ... except that the Scots Dumpy, Dorking (red earlobes, white eggs), and possibly a few more breeds are also exceptions. Actually, scientists don't necessarily see exceptions as ugly facts disrupting a beautiful theory, because they can lead to some interesting new questions (the Dumpy and Dorking chickens may be related).

[entanglement]

25. It doesn't. In mathematics, conjectures are considered disproved if

there is a counter example.

[Orangepeel]

26. I always thought that the exception proved a different rule

the rule that there is an exception to every rule.

:shrug:

"prove" may very well mean "test", as others have said. But, that doesn't make sense to me. Trying to come up with an exception may test a rule, but the exception itself doesn't. It provides evidence against the rule being true, which isn't at all what that phrase means.

[Lisa]

27. if the rule is put to the test, it could well fail ...

Which is what a relevant exception which can't be accounted for would do. As you say, it would be evidence against that rule. (People say "proves the rule" with a note of finality, but I always mentally ask, "and then what happened?".)

[Orangepeel]

29. but that's not how that phrase is used

In practice, it is used as follows:

A: Everyone named Orangepeel is as idiot!
B: But that one poster on DU isn't an idiot.
A: Oh, that one exception doesn't matter

But, if the exception is testing the rule, it really means:

A: Everyone named Orangepeel is an idiot!
B: But that one poster on DU isn't an idiot.
A: You're right. I spoke too quickly. Not *every* Orangepeel is an idiot.

It very well could have morphed into a phrase that means the opposite of what it is supposed to mean, like "I could care less." But otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

[Lisa]

30. I absolutely agree -- the connotation it's taken on ...

... is the one you point out. "Prove" is assumed to have a positive meaning, like "confirm" -- when it likely didn't start out that way. (For example, I bet the automakers would love to have a "proving ground" that gave them exactly the results they wanted to hear, instead of a "testing ground"!)

And as you noted, entire phrases can end up being misquoted (the "I could care less" example you provided, which makes more sense with the "not" included), or turned around ironically ("yeah, right").

This is the kind of thing which can cause a lot of confusion, because connotations can change faster than the traditional dictionary definitions -- especially if one is trying to talk to people in other countries, or in different age groups. English is an international trading and academic language, so idioms like this can be a real problem. (I work with many ESL people, and even a casual bit of slang can result in big headaches.)

p.s. I like your way of putting it -- "proves the rule that there is an exception to every rule" -- nice and succinct, and conveys the impression that the phrase is trite, without being too snappy.

[pitohui]

28. "prove" in the old meaning of the word

"prove" used to have two meanings, one of the meanings was "test," so the exception would test the rule -- as in test the limits of the rule

your rule of thumb is that freepers are stupid, your wife's friend "tests" your rule because it is an exception

however, you and i know that, even though we encounter these exceptions, the rule of thumb is still useful because it works MOST of the time

get it now?

i think i read this in stephen jay gould

[beyurslf]

31. "She's the exception who proves the rule" means the rule that there is an

exception to every rule. That is "rule" she is proving.

[Momgonepostal]

35. I would have never thought there would be so many differing...

opinions on this! Thanks to all who commented!

[Duer 157099]

36. OK, now that this is cleared up: What about "begs the question"?

Both of these phrases have caused me to spend considerable time thinking of what they really mean.